Dan basically said he considered resting starters but had to practice/plan for the game all week as if it mattered, and didn’t want to throw in reserves with no prep. And since NFL rosters aren’t really big enough to rest everyone, you end up with a patchwork of players out there, and miscommunications and broken plays are where injuries tend to happen.
People said the same thing about the Giants in 2007. They could have rested their starters vs the 15-0 Patriots and chose to play. They lost like 35-34 or something like that and never lost after that.
Very different scenario IMO. Giants were worse than the Patriots so playing the best team in the league that also had something to play for that week (unlike the Niners) was a good test heading into the playoffs. Coughlin was probably old school enough to also think he owed it to the game to give the Patriots a real game since they were chasing perfection.
Save some of that for the post-season
Obviously he should have rested his players.
The fact that he didn’t rest them and arbitrarily decided to give them this play off is just not logically consistent. If his concern was injury risk, the starters aren’t playing at all, or maybe just the minimal amount to keep Goodell happy.
Could they have got a better seed if they won? I figure you know for sure, so I don’t have to spend time looking it up.
Also what JordanIB said.
Counterpoint: This isn’t Madden. Players aren’t just a lifeless composite of random abilities. Team culture is a real thing and Dan has built it. As is team chemistry. You put out a random assortment of players who haven’t practiced together all week and who knows what happens. You have to have some starters out there because your roster isn’t big enough. Do you really want your all pro center getting his legs taken out because the backup guard missed a read? Those are serious concerns.
2 Likes
Sure, but this is a calculation that has already been made by many teams, numerous times in the history of the NFL. I highly doubt that the Lions “team culture” is so unique that they can’t benefit from their most valuable starters getting extra rest like every other team seems to be capable of.
You say this but have you ever seen a scenario where heading into a week 17 (or penultimate week in the past) where the meaningfulness of a MNF game wasn’t decided until sunday afternoon? If they clinched the 1 seed this week, I’m sure they rest starters next week. But they didn’t know until like 24 hours before kickoff what the scenario would be.
Was there a scenario where loss to SF and win vs Minn doesn’t give them the #1 seed? If there was, I missed that.
If Min and Phi had lost, would they have clinched with a win vs SF? I guess that changes things.
Philly was already eliminated from the 1 seed. If Minny had lost to GB on Sunday, then the SF game was a 1 seed clincher for Detroit. So they had to prepare for it.
Well, that explains it a little, but there is still no need to go all out. Teams pull their key starters all the time in blowouts. It’s not like they need to gameplan for that.
Presumably they have figured out that the benefits of injury-risk avoidance and getting the backups some reps outweighs the downside of injury due to personnel not being maximally prepared. I don’t think any amount of “team culture” can change that calculation substantially.
Also the game wasnt 100% meaningless because had they lost, they lose the 1 seed if they tie next week. An unlikely but not impossible scenario in a battle of relatively equal teams.
I’d say that benefit of player rest is probably >>> than equity you are going to get out of a tie in that spot.
Arguably tie is less likely in that spot than average (which is very low chance) because for Min a tie is a loss, so if they are playing correctly, they will take chances that they otherwise wouldn’t/shouldn’t, meaning that results will be even more polarized towards win/loss vs tie than they normally would be.
Another thing to consider is if the Lions lost last night, they have to win vs the Vikings. But now if the game ends in a tie, Lions win HFA.
I could see Campbell having a chance to settle for a tie and going for it anyway. My team plays to win brother!
4 Likes
LOL can you imagine? Game tied 23-23 w/ 3 seconds left in OT. Lions attempt 23 yard FG. It’s blocked, Vikings run it back for a touchdown and win HFA.
I mean it was just a couple seasons ago we had that Chargers/Raiders week 18 game where a tie would have put them both in at the expense of the Steelers, otherwise the loser was out. There was all sorts of talk about whether they’d play soft, but both teams went all out even in OT.
IIRC they had each kicked a FG in overtime and time was running out with the Raiders around midfield, on the verge of sitting on the ball, when Staley called a TO out of nowhere like he was hoping for a last ditch possession. Raiders were like “ok, fuck you” and proceeded to drive into FG territory and kick the game winner.
2 Likes
I think the Raiders were going for the win regardless of the TO. By winning Raiders got the 6th seed and got to play Bills rather than Chiefs. Raiders also had basically nothing to lose at that point as no way Chargers could win, so why not go for a better matchup.
Yeah you might be right. I know there was lots of talk about how before the TO, Raiders players were actively saying on the field that they were playing for the tie at that point, but it coulda been gamesmanship.